As heavily as the rain tumbled at various stages in Perth tonight so too did the wickets and records at the WACA ground, as Perth Scorchers were thrashed by Melbourne Stars in one of the most bizarre games of cricket ever witnessed in Australia.

After Lasith Malinga ripped through the Scorchers, taking record figures of 6 for 7, to bowl the home side out for just 69, the Stars were 0 for 29 after two overs of the chase when rain halted play at 6.39pm local time. Under normal circumstances, the side batting second has to bat a minimum of five overs to constitute a match. The match had to recommence by 7.52pm to ensure a five-over chase. The rain stopped, but the confusion was caused by the revised Duckworth/Lewis target, which was 5. In which case, only one ball was required to be bowled as the score had already been reached. The Scorchers argued the ground was unfit for play, but Hilton Cartwright bowled one ball without issue, the players shook hands, and the Stars walked off as winners by ten wickets. To compound matters, that extra ball was later expunged and the margin of victory changed from 10 wickets to 24 runs*.

The confusion of the result overshadowed the star performance of the night. Malinga took the second-best figures of all time in domestic T20s to help dismiss the Scorchers for the lowest total in Australian T20 cricket. Had Malinga not delivered two wides, he might have claimed the record from the unlikely holder, Somerset's Arul Suppiah.

With intermittent rain throughout the day, Stars captain Shane Warne had no hesitation in bowling first on a lively wicket. It paid dividends with four wickets in the first four overs.
James Faulkner had Herschelle Gibbs dropped first ball as it reared off the gloves and went through two sets of hands, that of wicketkeeper Peter Handscomb and first slip Cameron White, although it was incorrectly ruled leg byes.

Gibbs fell three balls later for a duck, bunting a full-pitched ball back to Faulkner. Malinga then knocked Marcus North's off stump out of the ground the next over, before Faulkner induced a nick off Simon Katich to leave the Scorchers reeling at 3 for 7.

It became 4 for 16 when the debutant Marcus Stoinis closed the face on one that seamed away and parried a leading edge to gully. Another T20 debutant Cartwright and veteran Adam Voges tried to salvage the innings and got through the next four overs unscathed. Enter Warne, with his supposed bruised ego from opening night. His control of a slippery ball was, well, Warne-esque. He delivered the perfect slider to Voges to trap him lbw.

Having held Malinga back for the middle order, Warne called upon his trump card the following over to finish off the innings. A brilliantly disguised slower ball had Cartwright spoon a catch to midwicket. Malinga then delivered a thunderbolt outswinger past the edge of Nathan Coulter-Nile before trapping him plumb in front with another superb slower ball.

Malinga's fourth and last over was another exhibition in deception. Tom Triffitt fell in identical fashion to Coulter-Nile, before Joe Mennie became the sixth victim for the Sri Lankan as another slower ball hit the base of off stump.

Extras was the third-highest score for the Scorchers as their total of 69 eclipsed the previous lowest Australian T20 total of 71, which New South Wales managed three seasons ago at the same venue.

The chase began nervously as Simon Katich dropped Luke Wright at mid-off the third ball. Wright then smashed five boundaries, the same number the Scorchers managed, in the next eight deliveries before the heavens opened and mass confusion reigned.

After the drama, the Stars won their first match of the tournament while the Scorchers started their campaign with back-to-back losses.

@Jeremy Hicks, thanks for the explanation. Although the "only if both teams have batted 5 overs" clause is pretty pointless - as last night's farce proved. If they've got the runs, they've got the runs, whether or not they've completed the 5, and coming back out for one delivery is ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous, though, as calling a 5 over game a match! If they can't get through 20 then call it a draw. It's not like cricket is unfamiliar with that concept!

on December 13, 2012, 11:04 GMT

@drinks.break: The reason why they had to go back and play one delivery is that the rules of the competition state that if the second innings is curtailed *and it is not possible to resume play*, then the Duckworth/Lewis method is applied, but only if both teams have batted for at least five overs. So when the rain came, the Stars had 29 off 2 chasing 70 to win, and if there had been no more play the game would have been a no result.

However, the rules also state that if the team batting second scores enough runs to win, the requirement that they bat for at least five overs does not apply. So as soon as play was resumed with the bowling of that extra ball, the target score became 6, and as the Stars already had more than that they won.

It was nothing to do with proving the fitness of the ground. That is the umpires' decision, and they don't have to prove it to anybody.

JG2704
on December 13, 2012, 8:36 GMT

@Robrene on (December 13 2012, 02:31 AM GMT) Maybe it was awarded to MS because the target had been reached early. If it was a tight affair I would be with folk who'd call it a draw but I feel the right result came about. I think it would have been unjust if it was a draw

Chris_P
on December 13, 2012, 8:17 GMT

This has to be a joke, surely. D/L for a a 20 over game with this result? And people wonder why true cricket followers don't take this game seriously.

drinks.break
on December 13, 2012, 8:07 GMT

Having thought about it, I suspect the reason they had to bowl the extra ball was to "prove" that the ground was suitable for the match to restart. Otherwise it would have been a draw.

HOWEVER, that just goes to show what a joke the target was - or else what a joke it is to think that 5 overs can constitute a match. Because if it hadn't stopped raining it would have been a draw, even though the Stars had already scored nearly 6 times the 5 over target score.

Robrene
on December 13, 2012, 2:31 GMT

I cannot believe Melbourne team was awrded this game under D/L rules when the conditions stipulate 5 overs to be bowled to constitute a game. Surely the D/L method should favour both the batting and bowling sides. The revised target of 6 runs after 5 overs had been reached but there was a chance of wickets falling during overs 3 - 5 which would have altered the target upwards with the fall of each wicket. I believe this has put in place a very dangerous precedent for future rain affected games.
Saying this it would have been a crying shame for the Stars not to have taken points from this game and it will be interesting to see haw the awarding of this game effects the total standings at the end of the tournament.

here2rock
on December 13, 2012, 2:00 GMT

It is, pity that Malinga has chosen money over his country. Sri Lanka can use his services in Test Matches.

John060
on December 13, 2012, 1:06 GMT

WA drag a kid out of Melbourne grade cricket to bat 4 while the guy voted as WAs best cricketer last year sits in the stand
What a joke

Ozcricketwriter
on December 13, 2012, 0:03 GMT

The Scorchers wanted the draw. Poor sportsmanship by them. Well done by Hilton Cartwright, on debut, bowling the 1 ball required to make it a result. If they get all out for 69, they don't deserve the draw.

on December 13, 2012, 14:50 GMT

year ryt the guy means business - Malinga

drinks.break
on December 13, 2012, 11:36 GMT

@Jeremy Hicks, thanks for the explanation. Although the "only if both teams have batted 5 overs" clause is pretty pointless - as last night's farce proved. If they've got the runs, they've got the runs, whether or not they've completed the 5, and coming back out for one delivery is ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous, though, as calling a 5 over game a match! If they can't get through 20 then call it a draw. It's not like cricket is unfamiliar with that concept!

on December 13, 2012, 11:04 GMT

@drinks.break: The reason why they had to go back and play one delivery is that the rules of the competition state that if the second innings is curtailed *and it is not possible to resume play*, then the Duckworth/Lewis method is applied, but only if both teams have batted for at least five overs. So when the rain came, the Stars had 29 off 2 chasing 70 to win, and if there had been no more play the game would have been a no result.

However, the rules also state that if the team batting second scores enough runs to win, the requirement that they bat for at least five overs does not apply. So as soon as play was resumed with the bowling of that extra ball, the target score became 6, and as the Stars already had more than that they won.

It was nothing to do with proving the fitness of the ground. That is the umpires' decision, and they don't have to prove it to anybody.

JG2704
on December 13, 2012, 8:36 GMT

@Robrene on (December 13 2012, 02:31 AM GMT) Maybe it was awarded to MS because the target had been reached early. If it was a tight affair I would be with folk who'd call it a draw but I feel the right result came about. I think it would have been unjust if it was a draw

Chris_P
on December 13, 2012, 8:17 GMT

This has to be a joke, surely. D/L for a a 20 over game with this result? And people wonder why true cricket followers don't take this game seriously.

drinks.break
on December 13, 2012, 8:07 GMT

Having thought about it, I suspect the reason they had to bowl the extra ball was to "prove" that the ground was suitable for the match to restart. Otherwise it would have been a draw.

HOWEVER, that just goes to show what a joke the target was - or else what a joke it is to think that 5 overs can constitute a match. Because if it hadn't stopped raining it would have been a draw, even though the Stars had already scored nearly 6 times the 5 over target score.

Robrene
on December 13, 2012, 2:31 GMT

I cannot believe Melbourne team was awrded this game under D/L rules when the conditions stipulate 5 overs to be bowled to constitute a game. Surely the D/L method should favour both the batting and bowling sides. The revised target of 6 runs after 5 overs had been reached but there was a chance of wickets falling during overs 3 - 5 which would have altered the target upwards with the fall of each wicket. I believe this has put in place a very dangerous precedent for future rain affected games.
Saying this it would have been a crying shame for the Stars not to have taken points from this game and it will be interesting to see haw the awarding of this game effects the total standings at the end of the tournament.

here2rock
on December 13, 2012, 2:00 GMT

It is, pity that Malinga has chosen money over his country. Sri Lanka can use his services in Test Matches.

John060
on December 13, 2012, 1:06 GMT

WA drag a kid out of Melbourne grade cricket to bat 4 while the guy voted as WAs best cricketer last year sits in the stand
What a joke

Ozcricketwriter
on December 13, 2012, 0:03 GMT

The Scorchers wanted the draw. Poor sportsmanship by them. Well done by Hilton Cartwright, on debut, bowling the 1 ball required to make it a result. If they get all out for 69, they don't deserve the draw.

drinks.break
on December 12, 2012, 22:31 GMT

Can anyone explain why they had to go back and play one delivery when the target had already been reached? What if they came back out at 0 for 6, but the batsman was dismissed on that one ball? Would the target have been revised?

And then there's the question of the target itself. After 5 overs, the Scorchers were on 4/21. They were all out in 15.2 overs (or 3/4 of an innings), which to me suggests that a common-sense target would have been 3/4 x 21 = 16. In last night's game, the difference between a target of 5 and of 16 was immaterial, but it highlights how hopeless D/L is when it comes to 5 over contests. The match referee could come up with a much better target just by using his common sense.

JG2704
on December 12, 2012, 22:12 GMT

As an English man it's good to see Luke Wright doing well out there . It was also good to see that M got the win. I thought there might be a 5 over rule before DL came into play and if the scores were tight DL after 2 or 3 overs would be very contrioversial. In this instance only one team were going to win from there so I'm glad they didn't have to settle for the draw

Eccafrog
on December 12, 2012, 19:38 GMT

What a TOTAL FARCE this BBL is - 6 runs from 5 overs. What a joke

on December 12, 2012, 18:16 GMT

Congratzz Malinga...Keep it up...!!! from SL

Neeta
on December 12, 2012, 17:49 GMT

Malinga can only take wickets against guys who have not played him much. Make him play India again after this performance and he will again go for 80 runs in his 10 overs with an odd wicket or two thrown him..:P

Malinga is the best one day and t20 bowler atm and has been for a while. Too bad he doesn't play tests anymore.

Sinhaya
on December 12, 2012, 16:28 GMT

Great work Malinga but you must do well against Aussies in the ODIs next month. If not, all of this is totally useless. Malinga's record against Australia and England is good but poor against India and Pakistan.

on December 12, 2012, 15:54 GMT

I am just wondering why they needed to bat for one bowl after the rain? The rule is 5 overs. So whats the matter with 2.0 and 2.1 overs (why they didnt stop the match after 2.0 overs rather than going just for one bowl more)? Anyone could pls explain me how it was decided...thanks

Engee
on December 12, 2012, 15:48 GMT

GO Malinga..crown prince of SL!

on December 12, 2012, 15:25 GMT

I thought that WA cricket had hit rock bottom. I was wrong.

Chris_P
on December 12, 2012, 14:56 GMT

What is happening to cricket in WA?

Mikecricket
on December 12, 2012, 14:50 GMT

What a joke bowling one ball and winning! Australia accoation sucks you gyus are so bad cant get any thing right

Dear Malinga,
If this happened 4 months before,I would have been a joyous man.But this new didn't bring me a smile at all.you couldn't win the T20 finals for us,the innocent SL fans who had been cheering for you since your debut.
~SL fan~

D-Train
on December 12, 2012, 13:57 GMT

Although I agree with the final decision, I still think there is some confusion with regards to the laws and some clarification needs to be given as to why the decision was made and why an extra ball had to be bowled. I understand the idea behind the Stars winning because they already passed the 5 over D/L total. Hypothetically if they chased a full score within 5 overs they'd be the winners, so why should it be any different with D/L? But my issue is why does an extra ball have to be bowled?

No featured comments at the moment.

D-Train
on December 12, 2012, 13:57 GMT

Although I agree with the final decision, I still think there is some confusion with regards to the laws and some clarification needs to be given as to why the decision was made and why an extra ball had to be bowled. I understand the idea behind the Stars winning because they already passed the 5 over D/L total. Hypothetically if they chased a full score within 5 overs they'd be the winners, so why should it be any different with D/L? But my issue is why does an extra ball have to be bowled?

MENDIS_Forever
on December 12, 2012, 14:17 GMT

Dear Malinga,
If this happened 4 months before,I would have been a joyous man.But this new didn't bring me a smile at all.you couldn't win the T20 finals for us,the innocent SL fans who had been cheering for you since your debut.
~SL fan~

What a joke bowling one ball and winning! Australia accoation sucks you gyus are so bad cant get any thing right

Chris_P
on December 12, 2012, 14:56 GMT

What is happening to cricket in WA?

on December 12, 2012, 15:25 GMT

I thought that WA cricket had hit rock bottom. I was wrong.

Engee
on December 12, 2012, 15:48 GMT

GO Malinga..crown prince of SL!

on December 12, 2012, 15:54 GMT

I am just wondering why they needed to bat for one bowl after the rain? The rule is 5 overs. So whats the matter with 2.0 and 2.1 overs (why they didnt stop the match after 2.0 overs rather than going just for one bowl more)? Anyone could pls explain me how it was decided...thanks

Sinhaya
on December 12, 2012, 16:28 GMT

Great work Malinga but you must do well against Aussies in the ODIs next month. If not, all of this is totally useless. Malinga's record against Australia and England is good but poor against India and Pakistan.